|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/08/2007 : 21:47:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
Thank you for your reply. I was posting simutaneously with you, it appears. |
89 minutes is simultaneous?  | I accept your statement to be conclusive as to your response. |
Don't be so quick. I added something. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 21:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Jerome.....
I have attempted to comply with your request with somewhat mixed results. Before you are sent back up the rabbit hole for some offence to the Red Queen, I would like to hear your answer to my query.
By the way, have you ever read Martin Gardner's The Annotated Alice? Fascinating stuff. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 22:42:13 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck:
But Kil objects:
But the thing is, we're dealing with not one but many different kinds of sightings which further complicates matters, while we muse over the problem. The whole subject of UFO's that are still UFO's is so nebulous, () where would we begin a serious investigation and with what tools and with what ideas beyond what is already being done? How would we recognize which kind of incident is better to focus on and more worthy of our scientific dollars then another? |
Well, actually, I was mostly responding to this in my post:
bngbuck:
Current "critical thought" strictures prohibit much exercise of the imagination. |
You are correct if you understood the paragraph that you quoted as my bringing up some significant problems that would have to be addressed in order to investigate more thoroughly what has already been investigated.
However, I happen to agree with Filthy and probably most other people on this forum. Science is the way.
And Dude said:
| First, you have to take the irrational step to and conclude that flashing lights in the sky are worth money to investigate. |
Which hardly sounds like an endorsement for further investigation.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 23:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
Filthy stated:
First of all, nobody is suggesting that unidentified objects should not be investigated scientifically. In fact, most here think scientific investigation is the only way to look into these phenomena. (italics mine) |
Actually, that was me; although, I greatly appreciate the mistake. (A comparison to such an august writer as filthy is high praise indeed!)Dude suggested:
Second, you have to start with the basics. Observation. You have to generate some data by simply going out and recording observations. You could do this in any variety of ways. Get some high res/high definition telescopic video cameras and set them to look at the skies. Build a radar site dedicated to the task, which eliminates the pesky real job that other radar sites have to do.
But Kil objects:
But the thing is, we're dealing with not one but many different kinds of sightings which further complicates matters, while we muse over the problem. The whole subject of UFO's that are still UFO's is so nebulous, () where would we begin a serious investigation and with what tools and with what ideas beyond what is already being done? How would we recognize which kind of incident is better to focus on and more worthy of our scientific dollars then another? |
This does not seem like an objection to Dude's comment. This seems like a legitimate question of defining the group of phenomena with which one would choose to work. | This is the area in which I asked my hypothetical question to all - what would you do if you had virtually unlimited resources, were well paid for your efforts and had a mission to; by God, Zeus, and Harris's Buddha, investigate this UFO/UAP thing? |
I completely agree with Dave W. on this: it would likely be a waste of my time, but if you could pay me enough I'd be willing to try. (Just no promise of results!)| I gather that Kil feels that he could, or would, not undertake such a formidable task. |
I doubt that Kil couldn't nor wouldn't try, given enough incentive. He is just voicing some legitimate difficulties.If Filty is right, and most here think that scientific investigation is the only way to look into this phenomenon, then:
HOW DO YOU APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to UAP? |
I think Dave W. answered this adequately.Dave, how about leaving SFN and starting The Institute for the Scientific Study of UAP (with initial funding of 100M and a Director's salary of 500K per year, with a five year contract?
Cune, would you take the job?
Jerome, I know you would accept the offer, but specifically how would you structure your organization and |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2007 : 23:43:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
But why would I need to leave the SFN?
Because your billionaire boss wants your full attention for $500K a year.
I thought I had done so, already. Unfortunately, even ignoring aliens and woo, the reality is that relatively few full sighting investigations are going to result in definitive reports like "it was a blimp."
Of those remaining, would you conclude that they were inexplicable, UAP=UAP, and dismiss them from further consideration?
The best-case ("dream") scenario, really, is that the ISSUAP hires an army of psychologists, sociologists and behaviorists and we churn out articles and books and press releases describing numerous double-blind, randomized trials (non-historical science) about why people choose to believe in fantasy explanations for mundane occurrences. But then the goal there wouldn't be the study of UAP so much as it would be the study of certain human attitudes.
With your limitless funds, would you also have hired another army of engineers, physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and many other "hard" scientists to - maybe postulate, experiment, and ultimately try to recreate some of the phenomena a la the Manhattan Project; only predicated on 21st century physics and mechanics? Or maybe to only analyze the thoroughly vetted, inexplicable events in a much more intense and sophisticated manner than the original vetting?
Or does your reference to "fantasy explanations" indicate that you feel that these professional's talents would in no way be applicable to the problem at hand, because you knew when you took the job that it was all fantasy, even the filtered, vetted, objectively investigated few that you were hired for five years to investigate?
Also, would you focus only on already documented cases - historical data - or would you use Dude's approach of trying to generate new data? If so, how?
Dave, we are obviously posting within the same general time frame and I have failed to pick up on some of your replies quickly enough to properly respond. I am multi-tasking heavily this evening, and I apologize for not being able to render rapid enough replies to your comments. It is about midnight up here on the Canadian border, on my side of the time line, and we seniors need to go to bed by one or two, so I will be leaving soon. I'll be here tomorrow.
(With the blue, I was just playing with the Forum Code. Hope I haven't violated any laws of Foraland)
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 00:50:39 [Permalink]
|
Boron.....
I have been trying to clean Filthy up to merely grubby, but after your extravagant praise, he will know he is beyond redemption and resist all scrubbing.
I didn't see Kil as objecting to Dude, rather to the implication that UAP could even be seriously investigated. I can understand your reading my post sequentially and getting the wrong meaning, but my communication skills are sadly lacking and all I can do is try to improve them. I appreciate your pointing out the apparent misuse of the word "objects." Fortunately for me, with people like Bill O'Reilly and Tom Delay writing best sellers today, communication skills have very little to do with publishing success.
I completely agree with Dave W. on this: it would likely be a waste of my time, but if you could pay me enough I'd be willing to try. (Just no promise of results!)
Well, I don't know how many $500K jobs you have had, but I doubt that the way to get hired would be to express that you feel it would be a waste of your time.
I think Dave W. answered this adequately.
Then I take it you would follow the exact same procedure?
I would absolutely take the job, with conditions similar to Dave W.'s. If I have time later, I may tell you how I'd go about it.
I would very much like to hear that comment. That is at the root of what I am attempting to pull out of this portion of this thread.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 01:45:50 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
But golly, where do we take an incident like a UFO sighting once it has been investigated and still can't be positively identified and verified as something specific that can be explained?
Kil, that is precisely the question that I am asking all menbers present to give up some ideas on. (how's that for a floating participle?)
Maybe there is nothing but UAP=UAP. I'm HOPING that there is some inventive mind here that has an idea or two as to how this damned aggravation can be properly investigated, explained, vetted, really put to rest or put to work, whatever! Better minds than mine and possibly yours or even Dave's have examined this thing for better than fifty years. Perhaps some have figured it out, but if so they're not telling.
Boron said he had some ideas that he would reveal later. I hope he does.
And Dude said:
First, you have to take the irrational step to and conclude that flashing lights in the sky are worth money to investigate.
Which hardly sounds like an endorsement for further investigation.
It may very well be irrational. That's why I posed the hypothetical. I have too much experience chasing the buck to believe that anyone who made a billion would pledge a big hunk of it to an enterprise such as I hypothecated. But I ask you and others to take that step for the sake of discussion, and see where it leads. I hope I didn't imply that I thought it it would be easy.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2007 : 04:35:59 [Permalink]
|
I wasn't offered the job, but that's ok. It is well known that I'm not much of an organizer and would probably just fuck it all up. But for a mere 100K, I'll help with the field work. I rather suspect that many of these sightings were made through the magnifying lens of a bottle-bottom or manufactured from the whole cloth by those who would fluff their end of a conversation on the topic, so it should be an easy gig.
If I might be allowed to go a little off-topic, and allowed or not I will anyway so just shut up about it, there is a curious parallel here. Scotland's Loch Ness has been investigated clear down to the bone by everyone from legitimate scientists to yearning tourists, to wishful dreamers, to the drooling woo&woo, and all any of them have to show for it is the effort and a few funky photos that might or might not have been jiggered, and are mostly are too imprecise to tell much of anything about the subject. The dread "monster" has yet to put in an appearance nor has the least of evidence in favor of it's existence been produced. Thus, one is forced to conclude that the beast doesn't exist. Right? Right?
Wrong! As far as I can tell, not a single true believer in this nonsense has sobered up sat down and scratched his/her head, and said, "Damn, after all that, it must be there ain't no Nessie." It just doesn't seem to happen. Ever.
This is exactly the attitude that reigns among the UFO/ET adherents, and quite frankly, I see no way to change it. "There ain't no Nessie" and there hasn't been since the KT Event some 60 & change million years ago, but human nature just won't seem to let it go in spite of all of the fruitless investigations as well as logic and reason.
Thus it is with our current topic. The true believer, in anything, really, will never take a step back. This in and of itself isn't so bad, but TB is an accomplished arm-twister and drags others along with him, the worldly as well as the gullible and those who want Star Trek and Harry Potter to be presented as documentaries. In short, an embarassing percentage of Planet Earth's human population.
So whereaway, bngbuck? How does one deal with the utterly convinced & their various followings that refuse to see the tunneled restrictions of their vision? It is, after all, not possible to establish veracity where virtually none exists. I do not envy you your project, although I'd like to read the maunscript once it's passed through the hands of your editor.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 07:57:51 [Permalink]
|
Bngbuck said:
Jerome, I know you would accept the offer, but specifically how would you structure your organization and what would be your initial steps in undertaking the task? |
Sorry, you are incorrect. I would not.
First I am a businessman. I value the building of personal relationships for mutual satisfaction. I would not be happy as an investigator in the long term.
Secondly; money has never been a goal and I would never participate in something I would not wholly enjoy for any amount of money.
Thirdly; this endeavor would not be satisfying as tangible evidence is sparse if it exists at all.
Fourthly; I believe if there are ETs they will present themselves when they choose to and there is nothing man can do to hasten this.
I do think this topic is worthy of discussion and the speculation contained within will lead to scientific discoveries that will be useful to mankind.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 07:59:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Jerome.....
I have attempted to comply with your request with somewhat mixed results. Before you are sent back up the rabbit hole for some offence to the Red Queen, I would like to hear your answer to my query. |
By the way, have you ever read Martin Gardner's The Annotated Alice? Fascinating stuff.
|
My wife is picking it up at the store as I write this. I am looking forward to reading this book. Thanks for the suggestion.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 08:14:15 [Permalink]
|
I also would not take this job because in reality, if there are ETs and there is tangible evidence than it has already been found and is already being examined.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 08:22:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
But why would I need to leave the SFN?
Because your billionaire boss wants your full attention for $500K a year. |
My wife and child will be pissed about the neglect.I thought I had done so, already. Unfortunately, even ignoring aliens and woo, the reality is that relatively few full sighting investigations are going to result in definitive reports like "it was a blimp."
Of those remaining, would you conclude that they were inexplicable, UAP=UAP, and dismiss them from further consideration? |
The only "further consideration" that's going to be possible with sightings that leave us at dead ends for explanations will be speculation. My billionaire boss can get wild guessing for free on the Internet, and it'd be worth every penny paid.| With your limitless funds, would you also have hired another army of engineers, physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and many other "hard" scientists to - maybe postulate, experiment, and ultimately try to recreate some of the phenomena a la the Manhattan Project; only predicated on 21st century physics and mechanics? |
If that's what the data warrants. If the investigation leads to a conclusion of "it may have been a something-or-other," then attempting to re-create that something-or-other might lend support to the idea that it was a something-or-other.| Or maybe to only analyze the thoroughly vetted, inexplicable events in a much more intense and sophisticated manner than the original vetting? |
No, that's just the first step.| Or does your reference to "fantasy explanations" indicate that you feel that these professional's talents would in no way be applicable to the problem at hand, because you knew when you took the job that it was all fantasy, even the filtered, vetted, objectively investigated few that you were hired for five years to investigate? |
One of the more-common phenomena related to UAPs is that some people reject mundane explanations (when available) in favor of fantasy.| Also, would you focus only on already documented cases - historical data - or would you use Dude's approach of trying to generate new data? If so, how? |
Focusing on historical data might allow us to predict new data without having to gather exabytes of empty-sky video. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 09:26:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
HOW DO YOU APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to UAP?[/blue]
Dave, how about leaving SFN and starting The Institute for the Scientific Study of UAP (with initial funding of 100M and a Director's salary of 500K per year, with a five year contract?
Cune, would you take the job? |
Well, it would be hard to say no. A salary of $500k a year is far more than I make now, and far more than I'm likely to make over many years. And with a lot of that still in the bank after five years (or more, should the Institute still have funding), I could probably do OK even if my career in academia would be over.
Next question, then, is what I'd DO to study the UAPs. I have some ideas, though I don't know if they're what you have in mind. Also, it would take more time than I can give just this moment. So perhaps later, I'll work it out.
Also, would the billionaire who is supporting this work fund a few chairs in Assyriology, too, just as a gesture of good will? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 14:18:18 [Permalink]
|
Filthy......
I wasn't offered the job, but that's ok. It is well known that I'm not much of an organizer and would probably just fuck it all up. But for a mere 100K, I'll help with the field work. I rather suspect that many of these sightings were made through the magnifying lens of a bottle-bottom or manufactured from the whole cloth by those who would fluff their end of a conversation on the topic, so it should be an easy gig.
Filthy, Filthy, the field work of picking up balsa wood and tinfoil is yours! One stipilation, you must don surgical gloves and a mask every morning before you begin to scour the planet for evidence.
So whereaway, bngbuck? How does one deal with the utterly convinced & their various followings that refuse to see the tunneled restrictions of their vision? It is, after all, not possible to establish veracity where virtually none exists. I do not envy you your project, although I'd like to read the maunscript once it's passed through the hands of your editor.
One does not deal with or consort in any way with TBs. They are decreed by charter to be anathema to this project. All employees are carefully screened and interviewed for wooiness. Any indication of wooiness in the workplace will be cause for discharge.
Precisely the same conditions of employment must apply to those who may manifest or have a condition of skepticitus. Only those who are deemed UAP opinion neutral, by psychological and multiple interview screening will be hired for management, and receive the big bucks.
The field and office manuals also state that when either of the above conditions are encountered in the course of an investigation, extreme caution must be taken in dealing with the data; and the prime directive of "extraordinary claims or extraordinary disbelief require extraordinary substantiation from the source of the claim or the position of disbelief" must apply in all cases.
Remember, Filthy, in this Shangrilaboratory we are not looking to substantiate the existence of Aliens or extraterrestrial visitation.
It is possible, although highly unlikely, that that might happen, but it is not our mission. We are looking to substantiate and fully, or at least better explain certain, filtered examples of UAP.
I will be happy to send you a copy of the rough manuscript of the current monograph (chapter) dealing with UAP and Skeptical response to such phenomena. It will be a few months. If I don't get off this Forum soon, it will be a few years. However, I do feel that both the collective response from the first Topic thread, and now the excellent new input that I am receiving from the mutation of the second thread, are highly stimulating to my muse. I intend to stay here as long as it continues to work this well.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 23:41:12 [Permalink]
|
Jerome.....
After leaving the Halls of Ivy, I became a businessman myself. Having spent over thirty five years of my life as an entrepeneur and achieving a certain degree of success, I am certain of this: If the making and accumulation of money was not a primary goal, a person would need to possess an incredible degree of philanthropy to be able to endure the duress of a career in business -- with their primary or only purpose being that of serving others.
I would have to admit to a substantial respect, even awe, for any successful businessman that does not have making money as their primary goal. This takes genius. After all, it's not like falling off a log in the park you took a walk in. Most businessmen see earnings as a measuring stick for their degree of success in their careers. And what they enjoy about being a businessman is making money. With many, a time comes when money transmutes into power, and that becomes the primary goal. Many of these folks become politicians at which point most of their goals usually become reprehensible.
However, I not only digress, I am way off point here. Sorry.
I can understand your third statement, your fourth presumes something about ETs. The purpose of my hypothetical Institute had nothing to do with ETs. We were to examine UAP. Remember, no little green or grey men?
Edited to change . to :, add to possess |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/10/2007 01:43:23 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Brights' opinions of select UFO sightings P.S.
